Sound of violence silences Lebanon’s workers

The dramatic events that have unfolded in the recent period
in Lebanon
have hidden a very important development. As Hezbollah moved into West Beirut they successfully cut across a general strike
over wages that was planned for the same day. As the workers were coming
together to fight for their common interests, Hezbollah pushed its own agenda,
thereby heightening ethnic tension.

The bourgeois media has been talking of civil war in Lebanon.
Clashes between Hezbollah guerrillas and government forces have dominated
headlines internationally. The media has largely focussed on the growing power
struggle between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, attributing the cause
of the recent unrest to the government's decision to attempt to close down a
Hezbollah communications network, and sack a Hezbollah sympathiser. What has
been conveniently forgotten is that the initial spark for this unrest was in
fact a proposed strike by the main trade unions demanding an increase in the
Lebanese minimum wage.

Lebanese Marxist Kamal Farran discusses the roots of the
unions' demands, and the damaging role Hezbollah have actually played in
hijacking the movement for their own political ends. Kamal adds a note of
pessimism at the end ("Lebanon faces dark days") which we can
understand given the current situation, but we believe it ignores the potential
impact for workers' struggles throughout the Middle East, particularly in
Egypt.

Also, the Lebanese Communist Party will likely play a
role in future developments, as it is the only party with genuine roots in the
working class of Lebanon,
despite the leadership's sell-out to Hezbollah. Nonetheless, his description of
the problems of sectarianism is spot on, and we feel the article gives an
excellent picture of the challenges faced by those in Lebanon trying
to build genuine Marxism. [Introductory note by Luke Wilson]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2008, the Lebanese people were
expecting a general strike. Workers were expected to go onto the streets
demanding an increase in the minimum wage among other demands. Although the
government had taken a decision a couple of day before the strike to increase
the minimum wage from 300,000 LL (200$) to 500,000 LL (333$), the unions were
demanding an increase of the minimum wage to 900,000 LL (600$).

Rising food and oil prices and the prices of other important
commodities have made the already meagre wages of the workers insufficient to
provide for the most basic needs. The government was too reluctant to increase
the minimum wage since it is mainly composed of the Future Movement, a
bourgeois party which caters for the interests of the Lebanese elite and that
doesn't care about the workers. The government also includes the Progressive
Socialist Party, which has forgotten what the meaning of progressivism and
socialism is, and has adopted the same economic policies of the Future
Movement. The government also includes some other parties that have the
interests of the elite as their main concern.

So May 7 was supposed to be a day on which the workers would
show their force and demand their rights. Instead it turned into the first of
several bloody days that are still rocking Beirut and the rest of the country. So what
happened?

Starting in the early hours of the morning, opposition
groups led by Hezbollah hijacked the worker's movement to push their own agenda
in Lebanon.
Hezbollah was protesting against two decisions taken by the government that it
saw as a threat to its security.

The first decision was directed against a communication
network established by Hezbollah that trespasses the public network. The second
was directed against the chief of security in the airport, who is considered
close to the opposition and who has ignored the presence of a camera belonging
to Hezbollah directed at the airport. Hezbollah thus exploited the general
strike to protest against those decisions by closing the major roads leading
into Beirut.

The first casualty was the working class itself. Workers
were not able not reach the location where the unions' demonstration was to set
off from and so it was cancelled. The second casualty was Lebanon's
security. Clashes broke out in the streets of Beirut between pro-government gangs and
opposition gangs. Having more weapons, the opposition could swiftly control
most of West Beirut in a battle where even
RPGs were used. The third and most serious casualty was Lebanon's
future.

Since the predominantly Sunni West Beirut came under the control of the Shiite
Hezbollah group, different parties used this event to increase the sectarian
divide in the country. Suddenly, ethnic sentiments started rising on both sides
of the divide. Shiites were portrayed as violent militias attacking peaceful
Sunnis, while Sunnis were portrayed as Western agents aiming to destroy the
Lebanese resistance. Facebook groups revealed the deep sectarian feelings that
blinded people from the fact that they have common interests and focused
instead on the sectarian differences with insults exchanged between different
groups. The actions of Hezbollah in Beirut
were a major contributing factor to the rise of these sectarian feelings.

Tensions were already high between the Sunni and Shiite
communities and their actions just added fuel to the fire. The government's
decisions are not a genuine excuse to undermine the security of the country.
Hezbollah could have simply refused to abide by those decisions (if they really
undermined its security) since it has the power to prevent the Lebanese army
from dismantling its communications network. Many believe that the intervention
of Hezbollah was simply aimed at increasing its bargaining chips in the
political crisis that has been rocking Lebanon since 2005.

Hezbollah and the rest of the opposition have no economic
alternative for Lebanon.
In fact they have repeatedly stated that their problem is with the parties
governing and not with their policies. They consider the governing parties to
be corrupt ‑ which is true ‑ but conveniently cover up the fact that they
themselves are also corrupt. A major opposition party, Amal, has the exact same
economic policy and is involved in the same level of corruption as the Future
Movement, while Hezbollah's economic policy is a populist one that would very
quickly become openly pro-capitalist as soon as they gain power. The plight of
the Iranian workers shows very clearly the such systems offer no alternative to
the deprived classes (the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran can be
considered as Hezbollah's Godfather).

Amid all this chaos, the workers were forgotten, their
economic demands silenced and the workers' movement has become more divided
than ever with pro and anti government unions. None of the parties battling in
the streets have any solution for the workers' plight. They only care about
their own interests and plans. The Lebanese masses should turn against all the
sectarian, chauvinist and bourgeois parties who not only cause economic
hardship, but who consciously turn the Lebanese against each other so that they
stay in their place, while the elite at the top can advance their plans and
projects at the expense of people's security.

Lebanon
is facing dark days. Even after the current battles end and the different
parties sit down and talk, they would most surely agree on continuing to divide
and rule the Lebanese masses. Each party would get its own slice of the cake,
and in the future more conflicts would arise. The confessional system of Lebanon can
never rid itself of ethnic conflict and aimless wars, precisely because it
thrives on them.

Unless people focus on their common interest in overthrowing
all the political class and present an alternative that really has the people's
well being as the main goal, war after war will continue to rock Lebanon. Unless
the left stops tail-ending this or that bourgeois party or the fundamentalists,
the Lebanese masses will continue to count their dead.